Now Playing At a Theater Near You

naughty zoot wrote:The Great Gatsby was kind of a mess. It was very draggy for a fair bit, which I would not have expected from Baz Luhrman. It picked up once Gatsby and Daisy finally meet, and the last section was very good. All the performances were very good, although Tobey Maguire seeemed his usual anesthetized self. I thought Carey Mulligan, in particular, was wonderful. It was gorgeous, but the 3D didn't add anything, so if you're planning on seeing this don't pay for that "upgrade".

I felt the same way. It dragged and dragged until that point, and then the pace quickened. I did love the soundtrack (though my friend didn't), and I ended up buying it when I got home.

Really enjoyed Gatsby and the acting was superb. I thought the directing was great too, with some excellent visual metaphors and sweeping camera work.

I was also thrilled that it was largely faithful to the book, though I did thought it let Daisy off the hook too much--she seemed to be portrayed too heavily as a victim at times, and girl is selfish and vacuous, so I wanted a bit more of that to come through.

But ultimately really loved. it didn't drag for me at all. The 3-D was not necessary, though. At all.

The whole time I was watching it, I found myself wondering if it would have been better or worse with the Affleck, who was originally cast as Gatsby. I decided the first two-thirds of the movie would have worked better with Affleck (mostly because DiCaprio does nothing for me, so I had a hard time seeing him as "the man all the women want, and the men want to be). But as things start to fall apart, it was all DiCaprio.

Then, at the end,

Spoiler:

I haven't seen the film yet, and I really like Joel Edgerton as an actor but I do think Baz Luhrmann was going for something interesting when he was trying to cast Affleck. Namely, someone just as a big of a star, who came up around the same time, but in a very different way, and I do think the contrast would have been interesting.

12 year old me is furiously glaring at you for not getting Leo. Adult me is sane and not about to fight girls in the middle school library for a seventeen magazine with him on the cover though.

Putli Bai wrote:The whole time I was watching it, I found myself wondering if it would have been better or worse with the Affleck, who was originally cast as Gatsby. I decided the first two-thirds of the movie would have worked better with Affleck (mostly because DiCaprio does nothing for me, so I had a hard time seeing him as "the man all the women want, and the men want to be). But as things start to fall apart, it was all DiCaprio.

Then, at the end,

Spoiler:

Affleck was originally in talks for Buchanan, not Gatsby. I don't know, I think he would've sucked, but then I don't think Affleck's grown as an actor at all since Good Will Hunting.

I heard Affleck as Buchanan too - so glad they did not go that way. Leo does nothing for me either, but I thought he was a great Gatsby (see what I did? Sorry, corny). He was great at switching between supreme confidence and insecurity. Also, women in the book may have been fascinated with Gatsby because of the obscene spending, the confidence, and the mysterious history, but he was no hunk.

Ah, I stand corrected. It would have been interesting to see Affleck as Buchanan - I don't know that I've ever seen him play a real bastard.

I think he could be splendid at playing a real bastard.

I love Joel Edgerton but like I said Affleck I think would have done well as Tom Buchanan. I think hes a better actor then he gets credit for (I thought he was very good in Argo, actually, just very understated and I also really enjoyed his work in the Town) and in particular I think he tends to fade away in more traditional leading man parts, but if its a character part (Hollywoodland, Shakespeare in Love, etc) or even a leading man part with a bit more meat to it (The Town versus say Pearl Harbour) he does quite well.

I'd actually really like to see him as a villain now. Much like Hugh Grant I think he has an image, and in Affleck's a physical look (tall, square jawed) that could really be interestingly subverted.

I'm actually very surprised that he's never been cast as a straight villain before. Considering that there was a time when people thought he was little more than a smarmy douche, it seems like he would've been at least offered those darker, less likeable roles long ago.

I LOVED it. Like ridiculously so. I thought Leo and Carey were fantastic, and though Maguire was just adequate, I think you could see his and Leo's real life friendship coming out in a way that made their scenes together work surprisingly well. It is draggy at the start, but I think that's because it's fairly faithful to the book. But coming off every other film adaptation, I found this movie leagues beyond. The performances actually pop, Leo and Carey have great chemistry, Daisy FINALLY comes off as a fully realized character where you can both hate her and see how Gatsby became obsessed with her in the first place.

I agree with every word you just said. I LOVED this movie and am just so pleased that it exists. I speak as someone who has read the book and taught it about 10 times now, and I do wonder if that actually enhanced my enjoyment of it. I was super impressed at the care that was taken to represent the book's subtext in a way that was incredibly respectful of the beautifully poetic nature of the source material, AND interesting/palatable to a movie audience. It wasn't always 100% successful, but I appreciated the hell out of it, especially the performances. Leonardo Dicaprio and Carey Mulligan actually understood those characters and it showed.

Affleck actually played a bad guy in MallRats. I mean, not a super villain per se, but a douchey romantic rival who was brought down by illegally having sex with a minor.

I saw a sneak preview of White House Down last night, which I found highly enjoyable. Definitely "Die Hard in the White House" and there were some deliberate homages to John McClain. It's definitely a big dumb action movie, but as far as big dumb action movies go, I thought it was entertaining and fun. The crowd I saw it with certainly appreciated it - lots of cheering and laughter. And Channing Tatum is so damn charming.

I didn't see Olympus is Fallen so I don't know how it compares, but I have a feeling that they are very close to being the same exact movie. Heh.

I've heard they are but White House Down is better because of a better cast and being more fun, apparently.

I loathe Gerard Butler and find Channing Tatum really charming so its a no brainer for me.

I just saw The Great Gatsby today. I think I found a Baz Luhrmann film that I actually like (even though it was a little overwrought at the end and a bit overly romantic).

I am waiting for news that hell has frozen over.

I just saw Now You See Me, and I looooved it from the opening minutes, EXCEPT for

Spoiler:

. It's the first time in a long time that I wanted to see a movie again right after it finished. I can't believe it got less than 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, it wasn't a "great" film, but it was so fun. Also, magic is just always awesome. Someone said the movie was Ocean's 11 x the Prestige, which I basically agree with, except the Prestige was pretty dark and this movie was much more slick. Both had Michael Caine, and that's never a bad thing.

I was watching the credits for the magic consultants, and there was something about being "Inspired by the magic of David Copperfield." Really? I don't know.

ETA: more to the spoilered text.

I like most of Baz's movies (Strictly Ballroom is my favorite), but I can totally understand how he's not for everyone. I liked The Great Gatsby as well, and he was a really good choice to direct it because when you need a director for a movie where the title character is famous for his over the top parties, Baz is definitely the go to guy.

He really should stick to films that will naturally work with his visual sensibility. Personally, I think that's why Australia didn't work for most people.

Before Midnight. Finally! I have been waiting for this movie ever since I heard it was a thing.
I liked it a lot. It felt real and true to the characters we've seen over the last two movies. I even forgot that Ethan Hawke is a douchebag IRL for a while. I did think it dragged a bit in a couple of places, but overall, it was great.

Saw The Purge last night, and I was expecting a fun summer thriller. Instead, it was...laughable? But unintentionally so? It was too ludicrous to be an actual psychological thriller, but not over-the-top enough to be an out and out black comedy. So many character decisions and events made no sense...my roommate and I were almost crying with laughter. But, we had fun? So I guess that can be a certain kind of recommendation?

puddingcup wrote:I just saw Now You See Me, and I looooved it from the opening minutes, EXCEPT for

Spoiler:

. It's the first time in a long time that I wanted to see a movie again right after it finished. I can't believe it got less than 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. I mean, it wasn't a "great" film, but it was so fun. Also, magic is just always awesome. Someone said the movie was Ocean's 11 x the Prestige, which I basically agree with, except the Prestige was pretty dark and this movie was much more slick. Both had Michael Caine, and that's never a bad thing.

I was watching the credits for the magic consultants, and there was something about being "Inspired by the magic of David Copperfield." Really? I don't know.

I enjoyed the daylights out of it, too, and so did the friend I went with. The point you bring up not liking annoyed me a little, too, but not enough to spoil my pleasure. And it was fun that the movie set up a couple of things you could see coming a mile away-- which then distracted me from what was actually going on, just like a magic trick!

mokey75 wrote:Before Midnight. Finally! I have been waiting for this movie ever since I heard it was a thing.
I liked it a lot. It felt real and true to the characters we've seen over the last two movies. I even forgot that Ethan Hawke is a douchebag IRL for a while. I did think it dragged a bit in a couple of places, but overall, it was great.

I really enjoyed it too. Although parts of it are almost too real, especially toward the end. I don't particularly enjoy Ethan Hawke either as a general rule, but he was very good in this. They make a very believable long-term couple.

I saw Much Ado About Nothing on Sunday and it was gloriously funny. And I didn't even get taken out of it by recognizing all the actors. Everyone was wonderful.

I was going sir crazy this afternoon, so I decided on a whim to get out of the house and go see Now You See Me. So much fun! I agree with you guys about That One Thing feeling tacked on, but I loved the rest of it so much I didn't even care. Super fun movie.

Since everyone else went to see Man of Steel this weekend, I thought I'd take one for the team and go see This Is The End.  It's pretty funny - not quite as funny as you thought it was going to be, but still pretty funny.  And I have to give the guys credit - they really sell it.  It's not just a bunch of Hollywood hipsters winking at the cameras; they're playing non-flattering versions of themselves behaving badly (and sometimes stupidly) during a disaster.   At about the two-thirds point, I found myself wondering how on earth they were going to wrap this up, because the story (and the crazy) just keeps escalating.  At least until >>>

Spoiler:

<<<

As much as I hate to admit it, James Franco may have gained back many of the cool points he's lost over the last few years.

Man, this new layout for generating tags and such sucks hardcore.